Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 1

Reason of this page
I created this page as a very convoluted way of proposing some standardization of the colors used in these tables. For example, all technology stuff (space missions, planes, computer models, programs, other inventions) could be varying shades of green, while albums, movies and novels could be shades of orange. This is what we have now, and there's no organization to it:


 * 1) Light tan: compounds and space missions
 * 2) Gray: battles, languages
 * 3) Yellow: elements
 * 4) Green: planes
 * 5) Pink: astronomical objects (i.e. planets), weaponry (in headers), organisms
 * 6) Light Green: country subdivisions (so far: districts of Germany, provinces of Thailand, states of Brazil - however provinces of Vietnam are more colorful)

Tuf-Kat 18:43, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Currently the WikiProject Tree of Life project uses several colors for taxoboxes and this should be taken into consideration. WormRunner 22:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)  I added the colors currently used into the main page.  WormRunner 03:24, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that standardization of colours is often more useful within the taxobox class. There was a proposal for battle taxoboxes to be coloured according to the continent/region, though as far as I can tell nothing was decided so I just use grey.  I have my own colour scheme that I use for the division taxoboxes for British WWI divisions to distinguish Regular, Territorial, Yeomanry and New Army divisions. It would be good though to have some way to distinguish taxobox categories; history, science & technology, culture, and so forth. Might be worth compiling a list of definitive examples for each category that uses taxoboxes. Geoff 23:28, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have looked at the meta page first... Geoff

There is also a dark blue taxobox used for Ships. See USS Chicago (1885) for an example.
 * Added, though I can't figure out how to make the words white -- the word "ships" is illegible at the top of this metapage. Tuf-Kat

Hmm, I've changed my mind. I think I like allowing for more diversity within categories rather than homogeneity among similar subjects, though I would rather prefer that no single color be used more than once. At present one of the British military division sections and battles use the same shade of gray, as do compounds and space missions.

Assorted table chit chat
Recently, someone mentioned a corporations table on the village pump. Anyone know if something ever came of this?

I don't like whatever it is the rockets template does. It makes it more difficult to edit and doesn't really add anything. Before I take it to the wikiproject page, does anybody here agree with me? Also, what does everybody think about US states using basically the same template as countries -- I rather think they should use the same kind of light green template as other subdivisions. We did, IIRC, require that micronations and fictional countries not use the country template to avoid confusion, and that should apply here I think. Tuf-Kat 05:47, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * What don't you like about the Rocket template? I'll admit the html is complicated, but it makes for a nicely formatted table.  There is a version of it in the new wiki table format at User:Audin which seems less complicated.  (note I am biased, as I came up with the table in question originally) Audin 20:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Ragged left (right-aligned) is harder to scan visually, and overlapping cells can be unclear. I think separating out the 3 stages like you did is a good idea. Since I've been experimenting with new table markup, I couldn't resist mucking a bit and stuck some on your user talk page. :-) Enjoy, I hope. Elf 21:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Back to color discussion
From a brief browse of some of the battles listed on WikiProject Battles I could find three colours used in taxoboxes:

I assume the first is for battles in North America and the second for either the Crusades or Middle East. The third is the default, it seems. Geoff 06:15, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me to a page to explain where the colors come from and/or what colors you can use the name (e.g. gray instead of #cccccc) Tuf-Kat 07:26, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right here on Wikipedia: Web colors. &mdash;Paul A 07:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The WikiProject Protected Areas is another Wikiproject which suggests to add taxobox-like factboxes to National Parks and such. However just a few of articles yet use that factbox. But IIRC no color scheme has yet be finalized there. andy 09:10, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've sent messages asking various projects if they mind me changing the coloration so that there is no duplication of colors. Strangely enough, gray and pink are the two problem colors... Tuf-Kat 03:44, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * And now Alkaline Earths are the same color as compounds and space missions. Maybe it just isn't worth it to keep each color unique -- does anybody care all that much? Tuf-Kat


 * Nope. Keeping every single colour different is a hopeless task and doomed to failure. There are only going to be more and more categories needed as time goes by and the 'pedia grows. Better just to aim at making the colours within each subject area match up. Tannin


 * Indeed. Something I was considering proposing, similar to the tree of life project, in the wikipedia languages project was for each major language family to have a different color. Indo-european could be green; semitic yellow; austronesian blue; altaic red; etc. --Nohat 21:24, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC)

--- From the village pump:

Suggesting standard table for rocks/minerals
Is this the place to suggest that rocks & minerals should have standard tables like those currently used for, for example, birds and dogs (e.g., Whippet)? I've got a sample of a rock and a mineral on my user page.Elf 20:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) Comments?


 * There would be too much overlap with compounds. So just use the compounds table with a few extra cells. See carbon dioxide. Develop that a bit and then start a WikiProject. At that point try to gain support and comments on your table. If and when others think it is a good idea, then start implementing it. --mav 00:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Just one suggestion: When choosing the colour, you might want to stay away from red because it is being used by the animal articles (see platypus or grouse), stay away from yellow because it is being used by the chemical compounds articles (see calcium carbonate) or carbon dioxide, and stay away from green because it is being used by the plant articles (see ginkgo). mydogategodshat 00:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And it looks like the music albums project is going to use gold. mydogategodshat 09:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have created a WikiProject Rocks and Minerals. Please join if you're interested in refining this table. :-) Elf 18:24, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Colors for standard tables

 * Colors--Finding an unused color is going to become challenging as more topics are tableized, especially if each group subdivides the way the chemical elements project is doing, using pretty much all the colors for different categories. Elf 17:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this matter? Surely other projects will have tables of different shapes, sizes, positions, fonts, cell joins, photos and diagrams in different places and so on. Colour is only one of many eye-catchers, and probably the right one to use at a fairly fine level of detail ie within a project, as at this level the other features of the table, many of which are data-driven in a way that colour isn't, may be best left uniform. Andrewa 09:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Album template and table help needed
I have created a table template for albums. Two examples can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Your comments are welcome. Somebody who knows how to use the table syntax should make it look better. -- [Presumably Tuf-Kat]


 * I've improved this a bit, but there are two stray incidents of "&lt;/table&gt;" that I can't see where they come from. It's midnight, I'm going to bed, can someone else with HTML and wiki markup knowledge please take a look? -- Jmabel 08:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The &lt;/table&gt; tags were fine, it was the missing &lt;/small&gt; tags (and possibly also the missing &lt;/td&gt; tags) that were throwing it off. &mdash;Paul A 09:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes and beyond
I created Wikipedia talk:Taxoboxes and beyond to centralize discussion regarding the taxobox-style tables present on articles. I have placed one example of each kind I could find there, but may have missed some:
 * Proposed: Albums
 * Implemented: Organisms, battles, compounds, elements, planes, rockets, space missions, astronomical objects, languages, countries, weaponry

I would like to standardize the colors used in these tables, see talk.

Tuf-Kat

Suggestions for renaming page: infobox, factbox, statbox
Taxo = taxonomy. Nothing taxonomic about most of these tables except for the Tree of Life table. I suggest statbox, factbox or something like that for the generic name and more useful names for each of the table types: Taxobox, battlebox, gunbox, elementbox, etc. --mav


 * Yep, I vote for factbox infobox, generic, easy to type in an edit summary (same number of letters), even better than statbox (since not every fact factbox will contain what are normally thought of as "statistics", I think). --Lexor 13:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, factbox infobox. Elf 16:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it to Factbox in a couple days. --mav 07:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what Mav means when he says these charts are not taxonomic, but I agree that factbox or infobox have a better ring to them than taxobox which sound like somwhere you would put the remains of an animal in after stuffing it. mydogategodshat 07:48, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer infobox, but don't really care that much. Factbox is fine by me. Tuf-Kat 08:13, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * infobox is also fine by me, it's a little more suggestive of different kinds of information than factbox, what say Elf & mav? Infobox ---Lexor 10:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I like "infobox". So much so that I've already started an insidious campaign to make the word standard:  (insert evil laugh here) -- sannse 11:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

html or wiki code
Other than "languages" all the tables here use html rather than the new wiki markup. Are we intending to change to the new system? Maybe we should use it for new tables even if not yet taking on changing over current tables. I've worked out the markup for the dog breeds tables (see my sandbox but haven't started using it yet. -- sannse 11:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And I have a wiki markup version of the Taxobox (the real taxonomic one) in my Sandbox which I use when adding a taxobox now. Also the country subdivisions I work on lately have the new markup, the Provinces of Thailand are already converted completely. andy 12:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The new syntax definitely seems cleaner and easier to read than the spaghetti of HTML for tables, but has the disadvantage of being unfamiliar in some respects. I would vote for encouraging the new syntax for new tables, which would mean changing all the templates here (and maybe on the various WikiProject pages, with consultation of those project members, of course). --Lexor 12:53, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And the very preliminary one for rocks and minerals (still on my user page elf but I'll create a project for it today, really) uses the new markup. OK, there's now a project. Elf 05:11, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been using the new code whenever I make a new taxobox, though so far I have left the old ones alone. See Tomato - WormRunner 17:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll start switching wherever I add a dog breeds box then. (I still like the idea of separate table pages - like image description pages, the table is visible in the article but edited elsewhere - but I doubt that will ever happen )  -- sannse 20:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Re: offtopic - That would be a way of resolving the scientific name - common name issue. The taxobox space would be set up by scientific name. WormRunner 20:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 *  I believe I proposed the same thing at Wikipedia talk:Article series. Even with the new markup, newbies might think editing is more complicated than it really is if the top of the edit screen is full of bizarre code.  Even better would be to have these templates standardized on a page somewhere (just a generic, empty table), and all you have to do is input the data in some easy-to-type format and the computer does it all (with a method of modifying tables themselves, for those who want to use a modified template). Tuf-Kat


 * I like that (offtopic) idea as well, it's same reason why the interwiki links are now get put into the end of the articles, not to show difficult code at the beginnin of the edit window. But it will not solve the scientific name vs. common name issue (yet another offtopic one here), as it have many taxa where no common name exists, or the taxa name has become the common name. But we better discuss that once that proposal comes to life, and then in the TreeOfLife project. andy 09:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the table being separate would really help in making editing look easier for newbies. I always worry that the big block of confusing code will put people off - even with the improved markup.  But, unfortunately, it seems none of those who like the idea are those who can make it happen.   I think a standard table might be problematic when trying to use it for so many varied subjects.  But if it could be made to work it might be good.  But this is all a bit academic anyway unless someone knows how to write the code and is interested in doing so. -- sannse 11:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds): Bah! I seriously dislike the wiki table markup. It is not readable in the slightest. The HTML tags, although sometimes cryptic, at least have some bearing on what they affect. When I see a 'table' tag, I know I'm dealing with a table, 'tr' a row in that table, 'th' a heading in the table, 'td' a piece of data in the table. Bah on wiki tables! - UtherSRG 16:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adding new boxes
Just to raise awareness over here, Companies, Corporations and Economic Information is preparing a standard table template. So if you are doling out colors for tables, you're going to have to reserve one for companies. &rarr;Raul654 08:06, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and placed the template (using wikimarkup) under proposed. Should probably be replaced by a real example (i.e. with factual info, like the other examples here) once one is made. Tuf-Kat

To prevent the meta page becoming too bloated, could I suggest not including boxes that are well established and which have examples on their project page? Just include a section heading plus a link to the project page and perhaps a link to a sample entry using the box. We shouldn't have multiple sources of box templates otherwise they'll get out of sync if people tweak the markup. Geoff 10:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Ohhhhh noooo, I know it's a long page with all those examples, but it's been so NICE to have all those examples in one place to look at and compare and contrast without having to bounce back and forth from the metapage to the individual pages more than a dozen times (especially since each so often takes so long to load when servers are groaning). I agree that having multiple sources is a risky bit--too bad there's no way to include a sample-by-reference (like {include:infobox:compounds}).   Elf 19:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll: new name

 * Infobox
 * Tannin (#1 choice)
 * Lexor (#1 choice)
 * UtherSRG (#1)
 * sannse
 * Baldhur (#1)
 * Elf (easier to say than Factbox, but that's not a bad choice, either)
 * mav (#2 choice)
 * Tuf-Kat
 * Dori
 * Michael Snow
 * Factbox
 * Tannin (not bad)
 * Lexor (#2 choice)
 * UtherSRG (#2)
 * Baldhur (good alternative)
 * mav (#1 choice)
 * Angela
 * Stay with taxobox


 * Other (write it in)

Tally by Lexor 01:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So can we declare the poll over and move the page to Infobox? Looks like infobox wins the day. --Lexor 21:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Infobox: 8 (#1 choice), 1 (#2 choice)
 * Factbox: 2 (#1 choice), 4 (#2 choice)

I declare that infobox wins the day. --Lexor 01:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
BTW, I'll keep calling the ones I mostly use "taxoboxes", but that's only because I mostly work on the biology stuff where they are "taxo" boxes. Either infobox or factbox is good. Tannin 12:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Infoboxes of taxonomy info will always be taxoboxes (or taxotables). Infoboxes of other info may, or may not, acquire a nickname. (Rockoboxes? Dogoboxes? Corpoboxes?) - UtherSRG 14:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Best laugh of my day! Thanks. Elf 19:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, what it's called is the least important feature of it IMNSHO. WormRunner 19:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Generic taxobox for people?
See Che Guevara. Thoughts? Appears to have been created by User:Maio. Tuf-Kat 18:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * My thought the first time I saw that biographical taxobox is that it was (or should be) redundant; all the quick-reference biographical details should be located in the first paragraph of a bio article. - Seth Ilys 18:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It is indeed reduntant, after all, quick references are based on locating redundant facts in an easy-to-acces manner. In reference to the location, I must differ, the first paragraph should be a quick easy-to-read introduction that holds the attention of the reader to read the whole article. There is for example, no need to place the causes of death in the first paragraph, that's irrelevant information to the introduction, but NOT for the taxobox. The idea is original of IMDB.com's bios, where they have a biography of the person and at the same time a quick reference of them (name, family, date of birth, place of birth, date of death, place of death, causes of death, etc). --Maio 00:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm against the use of them on the article's text, but I can't control myself. >_< IMHO, that should be handled by the software client, not by the article text... but alas, chaos comes before an order is set. If we allow every single article to have a taxobox unique to it, users will not be able to have a control of the article's appearance. That is why it should be either standarized or disallowed. An article's format should be controlled by an agreed standard set by a group of editors, not by everyone who writes/modifies an article. As of now, if a new skin is submitted which by the chance uses the same background color of the one used on the taxobox, then the article will look fugly as hell, and hard to read (which none of us want).


 * Right now I plead guilty of editing the following articles unscropously:


 * Airborne forces, Battle of Mogadishu, Che Guevara, Delta Force, Filiberto Ojeda Rios, Green Berets, HALO HAHO, Manuel Noriega, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, Operation Just Cause, Ruben Berrios, US Army Rangers, US Navy SEALs.


 * You could have for example, a main PHP class definining a standard Taxobox, and many different types of taxoboxes inherited from the standard. That way we could have the software handling taxoboxes of plants, animals, countries, people, sciences, events, etc.


 * Some of the cons could be: more storing space, more server processes, developing a GUI to insert or tell which facts will appear in the taxobox, etc.


 * Pros: easy-to-locate reference material (no need to re-read the article for a small piece of information that you don't know where it is located), an option to allow the users to turn taxoboxes ON or OFF, and obviously, the standard (no different taxobox styles).


 * Peace out,
 * --Maio 00:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of having infoboxes like that on individual people. It is redundant and mostly restates information that should be in the first sentence or two of an entry. Place of death should be at the end of the biography and "remarks" is an inherently POV category. Articles should instead be written in news style with the lead section taking care to summarized the most important points about a person. Having the table in there also makes the wikitext more intimidating to the editor. Thus infoboxes should be used only in connection to specifically focused things that have their own theme and with info that can't easily be incorporated in prose. --mav 01:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree, why should the President of the United States articles include infoboxes and not the articles of for example Mohamed Farrah Aidid who played an important role in the Somalian Civil War? or Che Guevara who played an important role in the Cuban Revolution? or Manuel Noriega who was President of Panama and is an icon of modern conflicts history?


 * IMHO, and with all due respect, I can't find any reason whatsoever to not include an infobox for an individual person, but include one for a president of a nation. That is indeed a POV, because being President, a famous musician, or John Doe who has a barber shop in the Bronx does not empowers the article to include or not include an infobox for the person. Every person is born equal, regardless of his occupation, country, or the main "theme" of his life.


 * Regarding the new style, well that's a POV and I disagree with it, but this is not the appropiate forum to discuss such things.


 * About "remarks": English is not my native language, and I couldn't find a more appropiate name. But if you read the articles where I have used it, the remarks written are NPOV, they are facts stated in the same article. For example, there is no way whatsoever in which you could mark as POV the facts that Aidid was "responsible of Somalian genocide by starvation" or that he "claimed to be the right ruler of Somalia". If you have a better name for that category then feel free to post it and I will make the appropiate changes.


 * --Maio 23:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. I like quick-reference boxes. I also agree that the standard style with the news-style info in the first paragraph is a good thing AND that the table formatting is intimidating since it appears at the beginning of the entry. ESPECIALLY so since we're now trying to use the wiki markup instead of HTML, so even experienced web users could easily be confused.


 * User:Jiang was a step ahead of you. :p He expressed the same concern like a month ago and started to add the hidden comment for my vandalism acts... which is indeed a great idea, hehe. :) --Maio 23:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder whether in all cases where there are tables, we shd include a comment (how do you do that in wiki--same as in HTML?) that says something like "This page starts with notation for the table displayed on the page. Scroll down to where the main article text begins"? Elf 03:18, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a separate Template : namespace. For example, to do a taxobox, type :
 * Template:Taxobox Raccoon Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Procyon lotor Procyon lotor

And this would display as a taxobox, which is edited by a separate edit link (basically a section heading just for the table). To create a variant of a table (like to include subphyla or whatever), make a table using the wikimarkup at Template:Taxobox/Variant 1. This would make it easier to monitor tables to ensure standardization (does watching a page mean you automatically watch subpages too? especially new ones?), and would be extremely easy on the eyes at the beginning of an edit window. Tuf-Kat


 * I agree that infoboxes should be edited separately. However, the style definitions of infoboxes should go in the appropiate Wikipedia-namespace page. For example, the standard information of the infoboxes for battles should go in Infobox for Battles. --Maio 23:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Infobox/template implementation strategy
1) HTML/CSS in articles is bad. Tables with the new wiki markup are only slightly better. Please avoid whenever possible. That being said, the goal of infoboxes in articles is certainly a good one -- when I need the quick facts about a country I often go to Wikipedia because I already know where to find the information. Thus,

2) A good software implementation is needed. Fortunately, the groundwork for that implementation has already been done by Tim Starling, who developed the MediaWiki namespace. When I type, for example, the following is inserted:


 * This article is a stub. You can help by [ adding to it].

This message is defined in MediaWiki:stub. Whenever it changes, the above substitution changes, as well. From this it's only a relatively small step to a full fledged template system where you can do parametrized transclusion.

Tim and I are in agreement that this is the way we should proceed. The likely implementation will be in the form of a "Template:" namespace. All common infoboxes, with their layout etc., would be defined as such templates. The syntax initially would just be variables in the template ($name, $flag, $population etc.) being substituted by parameters passed to it during transclusion. For example, to use a country template I would type something like:

A more advanced version would have support for doing cool stuff like loops (by passing the same parameter multiple times) and marking template sections as optional. Thus, related infoboxes could be summarized in a single template. &mdash;Eloquence 00:09, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's great! The only problem that I foresee with it is where is the infobox's code located and where is the infobox placed. The main concerns are that:


 * we don't want the infobox's code to be at the top of the article's source,
 * but we want to allow skin editors to move the infobox freely around the article.


 * The latter is not a problem for the standard skin, because that skin is set by the community. However, skin editors should be allowed to place the infobox wherever they want (be it at the top-right, after the article's introduction, or top-left, etc).


 * Also, the implementation should handle an option to allow users to set their preference regarding the taxobox's external and internal borders. For example:


 * I hate standard HTML table borders.
 * In my case, my preference would be.


 * I like an external border around the taxobox.
 * In my case, my preference would be.


 * --Maio 04:35, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, it would be great if all the code could be moved to another page. What I imagine is that we would type Infobox:Germany in the article, which would produce a table in the same way that [[Image:blah.jpg]] produces an image.  The infobox could have an [edit] link at the bottom just as sections do as Tuf-Kat suggested.  Clicking that would take you to an edit page where the code would be as above.  The template would still be part of it, but just wouldn't be in the article text.  Is this possible?  -- sannse 23:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Not trivially, nor do I consider it particularly helpful -- you're dealing with separate pages now, which creates issues with diffs, deletions, moves and so forth. Personally I think that splitting this stuff away will probably lead to less experienced users not editing it, while having it in the main article with a reasonable syntax such as the one described above will open it up to the wiki process.&mdash;Eloquence 04:41, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the problems with separate pages. Not insurmountable I think - but then I'm not a technical type and wouldn't be the one trying to surmount them ;) -- sannse 19:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't word it right, but I was essentially suggesting Eloquence's proposal. I agree with the above syntax being a part of the article, with the details of the table at some other page, and only the article-specific words and images being added at the article namespace.  Placing an edit link above tables and not including the table source for any other edit click was something I thought might be easier to code than creating a new namespace.  There should probably be a way to get from the article to the template page, though. Tuf-Kat 05:39, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not your wording, just my understanding. Maybe the template page could be reached via a side-link? I'm not sure if that would work for all skins though, I just use the standard view.  -- sannse 19:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no need to have them on a separate page. Including them on the article syntax is the best option (for technical and user-friendliness reasons). I don't know if you are familiar with Cascading Style Sheets, but with them you can control the position on screen of HTML objects, in this case, the Infobox. --Maio 21:05, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I have created a preliminary godbox at User:TUF-KAT/Fun with tables as well as a sort of hybrid Article series/Infobox called Topics in Greek mythology]], to improve navigation among multifarious related subjects. Tuf-Kat 20:55, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)